A doctor is continuing a nearly seven-year legal fight for secrecy after being repeatedly caught exposing himself at an Auckland landmark.
Known only as "Dr R" in public documents, the man was first seen masturbating in full view of a young female jogger on Mt Eden during June 2013.
When caught, he admitted the offending and was granted diversion and name suppression.
But just months later, in September 2013, Dr R was again before the courts on two charges of doing an indecent act with intent to offend.
For each charge, he was accused of exposing himself in front of a woman running in the Mt Eden Domain during early June and again to the same woman on August 24, 2013.
But this time, when the new allegations arose, Dr R denied them.
He was suspended from his job, but later returned, before eventually going to trial before Judge Robert Ronayne.
The doctor was found guilty of both charges in September 2015 and later sentenced to 120 hours' community work.
Dr R, who was also convicted in 2003 of offensive behaviour, was further ordered to pay $1000 in emotional harm reparations and again stood down from his job.
Judge Ronayne also declined an application for name suppression.
He said the courts "need to be careful to avoid creating a special echelon of privileged persons in the community who will enjoy suppression where their less fortunate compatriots would not".
"Professional status does not set you apart in any way that justifies suppression."
After being found guilty, Dr R faced disciplinary proceedings by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, which also declined name suppression and was upheld on appeal.
The Tribunal noted the irony that "having chosen to act publicly in this way, [Dr R] now ... asks for an order which would keep his name out of the public arena".
The proceedings led to Dr R's registration being suspended for one year and nine months, and saw him forced to have another person present when consulting with a female patient.
The issue of name suppression, however, was still to be decided in the criminal courts and would take place after the tribunal's decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in April.
Eventually a High Court name suppression hearing was held in June - six years after his initial offending - before Justice Matthew Palmer.
After losing his conviction appeal, Dr R said he was forced to resign and has not worked as a doctor since, while he has also been denied a medical research assistant position.
He said no District Health Board will hire him with the potential of his name suppression lapsing.
Publication, he added, would mean "I would have no employment prospects as a clinical doctor or as an academic employed by a university".
However, court papers read, Dr R was invited to undertake further study and awarded a fellowship pending human resources approval.
But, he said, the funding was denied because of the risk of damaging the institution's reputation should he be ever named.
Instead he sourced private funds for his studies, court documents read.
Dr R's victim, meanwhile, was "over it" and didn't care if the doctor was named.
"If he wants name suppression he can have name suppression. He got a conviction, I do not care about his name suppression," she told police.
The police also did not offer any opposition to suppression at the High Court hearing.
Despite the lack of opposition, Justice Palmer again refused to give Dr R his desired secrecy.
"The interests of future possible patients of Dr R are a relevant consideration," he said in a recently released decision.
"It would not be unexpected for patients to object to being treated by a doctor who has repeatedly engaged in criminal offending by behaving indecently by masturbating in public."
The likely loss of career options for the doctor were, Justice Palmer said, "normal consequences to be expected of such offending".
Publication outweighed suppression "by some margin", he said.
He also used a quote from former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Tom Bingham, "there should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor".
"Although Dr R continues to deny it, the offending has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and tested on appeal. His continued denials do not sit well with his prospects of rehabilitation," he said.
Despite yet another legal battle lost, Dr R indicated he would seek leave to appeal Justice Palmer's decision to the Court of Appeal.
The judge "reluctantly" continued the gag order on an interim basis until a final decision can be made next year.
"Despite this proceeding being unduly long already, to do otherwise would to deprive him of the opportunity to appeal to which he is entitled."